2. There is no change in the terms and conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and where the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court on the grounds that new materials for sentencing have not been submitted in the trial, and in full view of the factors revealed in the arguments in the instant case, the lower court’s sentencing was too too excessive and exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

It does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit, and is so decided as per Disposition (Provided, That the judgment of the court below on February 25, 2014 and the judgment of the court below on February 25, 2014 (which became final and conclusive, between each of the above crimes and each of the above frauds for which the judgment becomes final and conclusive) were added to each error, and the column for application of the statutes was 5 of the Act and the column for application of the Criminal Procedure Act was 2-gu column for criminal history.

(a)bed;

Each "X" of the second parallel of each paragraph is obvious that it is a clerical error in each "Y", and it is corrected that it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure.